By Agendas: Eerik-Niiles Kross

There is no direct confrontation, but the speaker neutrally acknowledges internal disagreement regarding the constitutional amendment bill (those who want to do too little, and those who want to do too much). The criticism was directed at the source of a technical malfunction (the console), which acted independently, pointing to a procedural problem.

The standoff is aimed at critics who are using the same arguments against the constitutional amendment that were used in 1992 (e.g., that the change is pointless, too fast, or too slow). The speaker dismisses these arguments using historical comparisons and counters a colleague's claim regarding the "morsipidu." He also addresses concerns about "legitimate expectation," justifying his position by citing the five-year transition period.

The criticism is primarily aimed at the "old West" and European countries who have shattered European unity due to internal political reasons and have failed to provide arms assistance quickly enough. Russia is also indirectly criticized for its aggressive imperialist policy, as is the US (Trump) team for dismantling the post-World War II world order.

The main confrontation is directed against Georgia’s ruling regime, which is accused of losing legitimacy, drifting into Russia’s sphere of influence, and engaging in state-organized violence. Within the Riigikogu, the speaker criticizes those attempting to minimize or marginalize the Georgian crisis, rejecting their efforts to introduce culture wars into the discussion or to question the existence of established international facts.

The speaker indirectly criticizes those who view the draft law as being motivated by a security threat or support for Putin, emphasizing instead that the primary driver is the restoration of legal order. He challenges the positions of other parties (such as the Social Democrats and Isamaa) regarding the rights of gray passport holders, but does so on a legal rather than a personal basis. He is also critical of the actions of the Russian Federation, which have complicated the renunciation of citizenship, but he does not make this the central theme of the draft law.

The main criticism is directed at the Georgian government (Ivanishvili’s circle), which is accused of abandoning democratic values, harassing the opposition, and opting for neutrality that leans toward Russia. The criticism is policy- and value-based, accusing the government of violating agreements with the European Union. The speaker believes that the path of negotiations has been exhausted and diplomacy is not working, which is why sanctions and counter-escalation are necessary.

Direct criticism is not leveled against the counterpart, but objections (e.g., regarding e-elections) are addressed and refuted, citing the conclusions of the Venice Commission. Furthermore, regretful reference is made to the European countries that participated in Putin’s inauguration despite the persuasive efforts of Estonian diplomats, indicating dissatisfaction with the passivity of those nations.

This opposition is aimed at colleagues who have expressed surprise or presented misunderstandings regarding the basis of the declaration, claiming that the Moscow Patriarchate has nothing to do with the People's Assembly. The criticism is fact-based, correcting the opponents’ perception of the symbiosis between the MP and the *Russki Mir* ideology, and refuting the claims that the Kremlin has somehow taken the church hostage.

The main opponent is the Russian Federation, which is being criticized extremely harshly for systematic war crimes, genocide, and the daily violation of international law. The criticism is directed at Russia's state policy, officials (Putin, Lvova-Belova), and their goal of replacing the identity of Ukrainian children with love for Russia. The opposition is intense and uncompromising, based on legal and moral condemnation.